Per that chart, The Seraphon book is the most powerful in the game.... yeah no.
Last tournament results table I saw at TGA showed that we have the most winrate out of all the factions in AoS, toping tzeentch and and IDK. And, unlike other factions, our top-tier lists are quite diverse (DT, FoS, TL in several variations). Lumineth, for example, is often just Auralan Legion, Tzeentch is Changehost, etc. If this doesn't indicate the best army in game, I don't know what does.
I agree that we're a really good army, but I somewhat disagree with Saurus Guard being good *in combat*. They serve an excellent purpose as ablative wounds for your Slann, but that's about it. Their lack of reach means that you don't get nearly enough attacks off to do much damage, unless you decided to bring 20 of them because you wanted to run a melee Kroaknado. After seeing the new Swordmasters of Hoeth, I mean, erm, Vanari Blademasters, this is what Saurus Guard should be, an elite guard unit that can actually kill stuff that comes for the Slann. But instead of the whirlwind chopping attack or the auto-hit, they should just have 3+/3+ -2 rend and a 2" range.
Since when 2 attacks 3+/3+ -1 1 is bad? And they have jaws above that. The only real weakness of guard is lack of battalion. Saurus/Knights are better overall, but if you want guard to be effective, you can buff them exactly the same way. You have less models in unit, so you can honeycomb to take as many units into combat as possible. 2 wounds instead of 1 means they will lose effectiveness slower and will be less affected to battleshock. 3+ to-hit means that they demand less CP, so you can bring more other buffs. Next time I have a fun game in tts, I am fielding 60 guard or similar roster with saurus hero support and see how it goes. I agree on 2" reach, but they don't really need additional rend. Remember, that these guys are similar in cost to liberators. And look how bad liberators are compared to them. I don't like Blademasters at all, btw. The only good ability is bodyguard for Scinari. I guess, it will be the only reason to take them. If 2" all around attack would be that good, kroxigors would dominate the meta. And auto-hit profile statistically won't be killing a starpriest.
Knights are very good, but I just wish that their melee weapons and Cold One jaws had -1 rend on them. In theory the massive amount of attacks is great, but in practice a lot of armies have bonuses to save, ward saves, re-rollable saves, etc. And that kills their damage output. They also require at minimum the Starpriest buff and a +1 to hit to do well.
They have tons of attacks. If you have problems with high saves, bring in a starseer and starpriest or support them with couple of salamanders. Why should they be universally effective? They are absolutely devastating against anything with 4+ or worse save and still pretty good against 3+. You are talking like a unit requiring support to be better is something bad.
Saurus Warriors are, in my experience, a tarpit and nothing more. They have a decent save and -1 damage in Coalesced going for them, but little else. Once again, they rely on getting a large number of inaccurate, low or no-rend attacks off that you will most likely whiff on the majority and then your enemy will make most of their saves. While I think that they are meant to be a "standard" infantry unit and not an elite, they still don't feel all that impressive when you're playing them. I think that a minor buff is still in order for these guys, something like additional rend, better hit/wound profiles, or going to 2 wounds each.
Once again, suprisingly, this unit needs support to to damage. You can make them hit on 2's rerolling 1's and wound on 2's as long as you have enough CP. Most of tier B and worse factions would kill for such battleline unit. Of course, they are not phoenix guard, but they are still 4 attack per model in Koatl's claw. If you want rend, there's battalions, if you want +to-wound, there's a sunblood.
I really like our dinosaurs, except for how easy they are to kill, with the exception of the Bastiladon. And the reason people don't like Carnosaurs that much is because they're the easiest dinosaurs to kill, and unlike Stegadons they require multiple buffs thrown on them to do well in melee. I love Carnosaurs, the models are awesome and I use them frequently. But most of the time all my opponent has to do is toss a couple of ranged attacks or mortal wounds from spells/abilities on them and they're neutered enough that they're no longer a real threat. But yes, a fully-buffed Carnosaur hitting at full health is going to hit very, very hard. Troglodons still need a little something extra going for them, because with only 1 spell cast and no Command Ability they still don't fit into most lists very well.
Most of behemoths in AoS are easy to kill, that's why we don't see much of them, only a chosen few. The key is to chose engagements carefully and don't rush to where it will die. I almost always manage to strike carnosaur in full health or with a couple of wounds lost. The thing is, Carnosaurs are good second/third wave of attack, not the frontline. When I play saurus lists, my main lines are often wiped out by turn 3, but my opponent is also weared out and they cannot do a thing to carnosaurs, who easily chew through their remains. In the last game, I lost all my knights, while my opponent had chaos lord on new beastie, sorc on manticore and 20 knights. I wiped all the above with just two carnosaurs left. Chaos Lord charged and brought Scarvet to 4 wounds, than carno activated and killed full-health sorc on manticore. For just 210-230 carnosaurs are at least good monster choice. We just have better.
Trog has fine abilities. It just have bad combat profile I'd say, it is fine, if it still had 6 jaw attacks. I'd be taking him more often if he was about 160 pts, but not for current price.
I also agree that our flyers got the short end of the stick, and this includes Terradons. Ripperdactyls do basically nothing atm, and while Terradons can drop a once-per-battle mortal wound bomb, they're far to fragile to be reliable. In today's AoS, a 6+ save is almost equivalent to no save at all, given how much rend and save penalties there are. And they also require a hero to spend a CP to reliably deal damage with their rock drop, and just like them that hero will die to whatever looks in his direction.
Rippers are indeed in a poor place. They should've had at least +1 attack or additional claw profile or more tricks. Once per game full reroll to-hit it just poor. They could at least chose an enemy units to which toad would stick to and any ripper units will have rerolls against these units.
As for terradons, they are not just good, they are one of our best units. They don't need to have better save, they are not about survivability. They are literally bombers. Once again, you are complaining that a unit needs a support to be good. But this is natural in aos. I think, NPE is born exactly when there are a lot of units which don't need support at all.
Salamanders are great, even after the massive points nerf, and Kroxigors are actually really good too. While it makes sense fluff-wise, their +1 to hit bonus coming from being near Skinks is a pretty restrictive drawback, as they need that bonus to do decent damage. But they're tough and they hit hard, and they really only need that one buff to do their job.
Salamanders don't need +1 to-hit to remove units. 3+ to-hit is often more than enough. You can add +1 when you need badly to remove something, but they don't need it to be good.
Sorry, but you sound like you don't want our units to be good or okay-ish. You want them to be broken and just play point-and-click game, where our units just go and delete stuff without need of heroes/battalions. Seraphon always have been around synergies and that's why I love them.
I definitely agree on this. When you look at a chart that shows Seraphon *far* ahead of armies like, for example, Orruks, Lumineth and Cities, it makes it seem like they are a vastly better army and there's no point in trying to play against them with the armies I mentioned. But in reality a good Orruk, Cities or Lumineth play really won't have a hard time beating Seraphon at all, unless their opponent is also very skilled. And armies placed in the lower end of the chart like Ogors, Stormcast and Khorne can still compete at a high level with the right lists and someone who knows how to play those armies.
You literally say, that good lumineth/orruk/cos player will easily beat bad seraphon player, which is kind of natural. Seraphon are better than Lumineth and Orruks and CoS standard build is a counter. If we are talking about skilled players, it will go down to battleplan, dice and micro-mistakes. Mid-tier seraphon player with a competitive list will crush mid-tier player which pilots any aforementioned army.
, 2+2+ -1, 1dmg clubs and bites. They held out quite well, even against a full melee Boneripper (my opponent did roll horribley though. IN terms of weaknesses, I would say it's the following: